Cambodia case study
(implemented by Caritas Switzerland)
Context and participants
Country
Location
Context
Communities part of
the project?
Project name
Cambodia
Rural arable land and
riverine
Area with high risk of
disasters
YES
Area with high
risk of disasters
Area with high
climate impacts
Community-based disaster
risk reduction (just started,
no project activities carried
out in that particular village)
What common risks and
Flood, drought, and by
hazards do you face in this consequence food insecurity
region?
and scarce water resources
Previous risk survey
NO
participation
Fragile and
conflict areas
The village is called Svay La in Toek Chhor commune in the north-western province of Banteay Meanchey,
close to the Thai border. 334 households are living in the village, adding up to approximately 2’900 people.
The main income generating activity is paddy agriculture and small-scale farming, complemented by fishery,
animal husbandry and horticulture. The climate is tropical with one rainy season (August – October) and
one dry season (June – July), which have been shifting over the past years, causing a mix of heavy floods and
droughts. In a normal year, two crops can be harvested. Due to the proximity to Thailand and to the difficulty
of maintaining sustainable livelihoods, a large share of the population (up to 50% of the working population)
is migrating to Thai cities on a temporary of even permanent basis, a trend which will be further analyzed in
the lower sections.
n=35
Figure 1: Participants at the resilience workshop in Cambodia
page
1
case study Cambodia
Matrix of risks
This matrix was filled in by the representative
group of the community interviewed. It shows the
most important risks that were identified by the
community and their perceptions of risks. For each
risk, they agreed together where to position it according
to the impact they have and likelihood of occurence.
B
E
G
A
D
C
H
F
Figure 2: Risk matrix of the resilience assessment in Cambodia
Reported risks and impacts
ra
ts
(D
re
)
re
ve
nu
Po
Cr
e(
lP
im
G
o
in
)
t
a li
Re
ty
gi
m
an
Li
e)
d
gh
(B
de
t in
lin
)
gs
qu
an
en
d
cy
lo
(H
ca
)
lt
or
na
do
s(
St
F)
ro
ng
wi
nd
s(
C)
)
(E
lu
Ci
vi
lo
ss
e
s/i
ns
e
cu
an
d
Pe
sts
ic
Ec
on
om
nr
es
t(
ht
s
ro
ug
D
Fl
oo
ds
(
A)
Highest ranked risks
Figure 3: Highest ranked risks
Figure 3 was produced from the matrix of risks. Based on the perceptions from the representative group, it shows
the main identified risks. These risks are ranked according to the combination of each risk’s impact (5 ranks) and
likelihood (5 ranks) of occurence, and are cumulated and measured on a scale of 10 ranks. The scale of Figure 4
is based on the risk’s impact (5 ranks) divided by the number of times it was mentioned.
Apart from the individual risks identified by the participants, the scarcity of livelihood-generating activities
presents a lingering threat each year, making the inhabitants very vulnerable. In their own perception, they lack
the capacity to deal with the risks which they identified and further, every identified risk directly impacts on their
livelihood. People in the villages feel that they are not able to build up sufficiently large storage of fodder and food
for crisis time. As these problems make their income sources insecure, they rely more and more on their family
members who migrate to Thailand. Family members who migrate are mainly boys and men above 16 as well as
unmarried young women.
page
2
case study Cambodia
s
liv
Lo
eli
ss
ho
of
od
so
s
cia
lc
oh
es
io
n
El
V
ec
i
ol
tri
en
cit
ce
yc
ut
s&
fir
es
as
e
y
am
ag
e
to
of
di
se
cu
rit
Ri
sk
s
in
se
Lo
ss
/d
Fo
o
d
&
W
at
er
of
d
to
up
tio
n
D
isr
am
ag
e
Lo
ss
/d
ail
y
ho
us
e
s
lif
e
Highest ranked impacts
Figure 4: Highest ranked impacts
Most commonly reported actions and barriers
Most commonly
reported actions
1. Family mobilisation
2. Hard risks reduction measures
3. Labour migration
4. Drought resilient crops
5. Taking loans
6. Use of pesticides and traps
Most commonly reported
barriers
1. Lack of financial & technical
means
2. Lack of knowledge
3. Limited economic opportunities
4. Lack of infrastructure
5. Poor governance
6. Too small fields’ size
As mentioned, in their own perception, the choice measures that the village population can take is very limited,
the main reasons being their lack of financial resources and knowledge of how to combat shifting natural
hazards. The main reaction to increase their coping capacities is the migration of a part of the family in order
to create additional income opportunities and make families less dependent on harvests.
In order to cope with risks, the family itself as well as external parties are the main sources for preparation and
reaction. This also explains the high importance of structural mitigation measures for risk reduction. For these
measures to be introduced, maintained and upgraded, people need to rely on external support. International
organizations such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the World Bank support the local governments
page
3
case study Cambodia
in infrastructure projects (e.g. road construction and water infrastructure). While these infrastructure measures
do not seem to take risks such as floods into account in the planning and construction phase they are important
assets in non-crisis times. Improved knowledge and skills in order to react flexibly to the multitude of risks that
are menacing them, would be an important intervention: this was identified by the participants in the assessment, together with support in hardware to improve absorptive capacities in the event of a flood or drought.
Analysis of characteristics of the community
▪ Assets and resources: The main asset of people in the community is their land, from which they depend to a large extent. Some people rely on machines for working the fields, others on oxen. The physical assets such as machines are susceptible to flood damage, so people try to move the machines to higher ground when the rainy season starts. Further assets flow in the community through remittances from community members migrating and this can be seen in the respective housing quality.
▪ Infrastructure: Infrastructure is available. Electricity lines are available in the villages, but not in every
household. There is a school in some km distance as well as a health post in the neighboring village. Roads (both mud and all-weather roads) and water infrastructure (hand pumps and village wells) have been upgraded and repaired through Asian Development Bank and World Bank loans, but they are also affected by the recurring floods (were not constructed risk proof). Some of the roads are even claimed to
contribute to water logging, increasing the duration floodwaters stays on the fields and the villages.
Further, flood-related infrastructure is lacking or poorly maintained, such as a broken floodgate or old dams.
▪ Institutions & processes: At the village level there are local institutions and processes in place which have
been established in the past years. Officially, these institutions are the most local representation of the government and linkages exist. According to the community, the committees in place are rather ad-hoc committees that take orders from higher levels in the case of a flood or drought, but are not activated by own initiative and motivation. Members of these committees usually are official representatives (village chief and his or her representative).
▪ Knowledge & learning: Risk-related knowledge is passed on through official channels through district and commune structures, but also by mouth. In the past years, official DRM structures have been slowly gaining pace and risk information is made available through the media. People also rely on traditional knowledge about flood and drought patterns, which is partly challenged because of development inter-
ventions taking place (e.g. dam breach in Thailand causing flood in Bantheay Meanchey province, local road construction causing floods).
▪ Values & attitudes: Social cohesion in the village is changing. This is partly due to the migration to Thailand
or bigger cities in the country. While social ties within families may be strengthened in some cases, they are generally getting weaker regarding the community as a whole. Hierarchy and a dependence mentality on aid from outside and from government were observed during the interview.
page
4
case study Cambodia
Survey analysis based on the three capacities
▪ Absorptive capacity: Poverty in the village is a key problem that limits the absorptive capacity of the population. While flooding has been part of their lives for a long time in that area, the recurring events (of floods, droughts, rat and insect infestation - if they damage the harvest) increase their vulnerability.
In the past years, the frequency and intensity of hazards has increased. Although they have found ways how
to cope with flooding, other risks are often only responded to by migration. Houses are built on stilts, fodder is stored on elevated plots and rice seeds are grown on elevated plots as well, so that they can be sown when the water recedes.
▪ Adaptive capacity: People mainly rely on agricultural production (and income generated through migration)
for their livelihoods, so the risks they face are affecting them heavily. With support from the government, they have shifted their agricultural production towards fast-growing, short-term crops (hybrids), which they can harvest before the dry periods reach their peak. Further, they are storing water for everyday use.
Adaptation towards droughts and floods is limited by the altitude of a settlement, since they are in a system
of larger canals and rivers and flood waters come from Thailand.
▪ Transformative capacity: the current transformative capacity is very limited. While people have adopted migration as a key strategy to address the risks and uncertainties they face, it is not clear whether the way migration is happening strengthens transformative capacities, as it also weakens the social ties in the
community and creates problems within families (drug abuse, violence, diseases).
The outcome is that the community has mainly adaptive and transformative capacities.
R
Figure 5: The resilience triangle
In terms of resilience capacities, migration shows high transformational capacities that help the population to
adapt and cope. However, what is not clear is how this ability to shift and transform will develop in the long
term, if it will increase resilience in the village as social capital and how the local bonds between villagers
are altered by migration. Further, the more flexible population in the village migrates, so those being left are
women with children, elder men and women, often without the traditional role or mandate to act and selforganize. Particularly men who lived through the Khmer Rouge period are traumatized by that experience.
Raising their voice against authorities or showing strong opinions is something many of them would not
consider acceptable.
page
5
case study Cambodia